Court of Civil Appeals of Texas, 2025

Leah Michal Rauhut v. the City of Killeen and Killeen Animal Services

Leah Michal Rauhut v. the City of Killeen and Killeen Animal Services
Court of Civil Appeals of Texas · Decided June 18, 2025

Leah Michal Rauhut v. the City of Killeen and Killeen Animal Services

Opinion

TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

NO. 03-25-00303-CV

Leah Michal Rauhut, Appellant v. The City of Killeen and Killeen Animal Services, Appellee

FROM THE COUNTY COURT AT LAW NO. 1 OF BELL COUNTY NO. 24CCV01470, THE HONORABLE PAUL A. MOTZ, JUDGE PRESIDING

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Appellant Leah Michal Rauhut filed a motion with this Court challenging the trial court’s “denial of her certificate of indigency.”1 See Tex. R. Civ. P. 145(g)(1); see also Tex. R. App. P. 20.1(b) (providing procedure for establishing inability to pay court costs on appeal).

This Court requested a response from Rauhut demonstrating that she timely filed her Rule 145 motion within ten days of a signed order of the trial court or within fifteen days of such order with demonstrated good cause. See Tex. R. Civ. P. 145(g).

Rauhut timely filed a response with this Court but has not demonstrated that she timely filed her Rule 145 motion with this Court within ten or fifteen days of a signed order of the trial court requiring her to pay court costs and finding that she is not indigent. Based on the Rauhut’s motion also prayed for leave to file a motion to request the reporter’s record without charge pursuant to Rule 145(g)(3). That rule requires the trial court to provide a reporter’s record of “all trial court proceedings on the declarant’s claim of indigence” without charge. See Tex. R. Civ. P. 145(g)(3). record before us, it does not appear that the trial court has signed an order memorializing any ruling on Rauhut’s affidavit of indigency. Unless and until an order in compliance with Rule 145(f) has been signed, this Court cannot review the merits of the trial court’s purported “denial” of Rauhut’s affidavit of indigency. See id. R. 145(f); Tello v. Office of Att’y Gen., No. 03-22- 00668-CV, 2022 WL 17490997, at *2 (Tex. App.—Austin Dec. 8, 2022, no pet.) (mem. op.).

Accordingly, we dismiss this cause for want of jurisdiction. See Tello, 2022 WL 1740997, at *2.

_________________________________________ Karin Crump, Justice

Before Justices Triana, Theofanis, and Crump Dismissed for Want of Jurisdiction Filed: June 18, 2025

Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.